An answer to prayer. (Letters).

Concerning your recent article about states and municipalities wrangling over the contents of invocational prayers ("Texas Lawmakers Wrangle Over Content Of Legislative Prayers," People & Events, March Church & State), I should like to offer the following comments. "Guest clergy" who refuse to be ecumenical in their approach, and who threaten to stay away if they cannot invoke the name of Jesus, are either mulishly stubborn or bigoted, or both. To them, I would simply say: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!"

This, however, brings another thought to mind. If a "legislative prayer" is devised to be as broad and inclusive as possible, would it not be so vague and general as to be without any real meaning? Proceeding from the foregoing, why have legislative prayers at all--whether offered by guest clergy in state capitols or city halls, or by full-time, paid chaplains in the U.S. Congress?

If public officials feel a genuine need for spiritual comfort and guidance--and are not just posturing to score political points--why can't they attend a house of worship of their own choosing prior to commencing their daily duties?

Frederick Goldman

Englishtown, N.J.